The Labor enquirer., 1887-03-19
The United States Supre me
Court Partially Rsdeerns
Itself.
II Decides that the FOrcible Re-
MOval OF Chinese Slaves Is
Not Conspiracy p
Baldwin. the Calf, rnIa "Cepspirator''
Il ordered Released From Custody
on Habeas Corpusi
gor ,he ENQUIRER.

court rendered decision To-Day In the
ease Of Thomas Baldwin, plaintiff in
error. against ]. @. + anks. United States
maubal, In error, TO the circuit court ol
the United States for the district Of CAL
Ildrnia E
Thiscsse presents another phase IF
Chinese question, and Involves the
rights Of the Chinese under the federal
law,
On the seventeenth Of February. 1886,
Baldwin, the plaintiff in error, and
other citizens IN the town OF Nicolaus.
suiter county. California, drove out Of
that town with force and violence a
number Of resident Chinese, bv pl acin ,
them on board a steamboat barge plying
on the Feather river, and sending them
out Of the limits Of the town and county.
Baldwin was Al rested under d warrant
issued by the commissioner Of the United
States circuit court. charging him with
entering into conspiracy with certain
other pc, sons to deprive these Chinese
Of the equal protection Of the law and
equal privileges and immunities under
ne laws.
Baldwin applied 10 the circuit court
ior u discharge upon habeas corpus,
bot IL was refused. snd lie now appeals
to this court upon the ground that the
charge made against him was not sutii-
rient TO iuslify his detention.
The Judges in the circuit court were
divided In opinion as to the follow ing
questions:
First-Whether the conspiracy which
y rtsulted IN the expulsion Of the Chinese
from Nicolau, In the manner set forth
10 the record is an oilense In violation
Of section 55lo OF the United States stat
uies, and, II 80, whether that section as
applied TO such state Of facts Is con-
sliluliohal.
Second-Whethe the acts charged
against Baldwin and his fellow conspir-
a.ore constitute an otfcnss within tho
meaning Of section 550S OF tile revised
statutes, aud. II 50, wbe her that section
j. constitutional.
THIRD Whether such acts so per-
lofmed constitute an oiIsnse within the
meaning Of that clause Of section 1886 Of
ihe revised statutes, which makes IL an
oilense for persons to conspire by force
io prevent, hinder or DELAY q % sxecu
lod ofany law ofthe United States. and
fs1, whether that sectlon Is constitu-
tioual.
This court In long aud elaborate
opinion by Chief Justice Waite holds
uatlhe Uoited States undoubtedly has
tHo power 10 provide for the punish.
mcu' Of those who are guilty Of depriv.
ug Chinese subjects Of any Of the rights.
rryirges, Immunlties or exemptions
giuanteed them by treaties. Whether
init power has been exercised or not
must be ascertained by an examination
of the statute upon which the charge Ia
based, viz; revised statutes, secti ons,
lJ5lg, 55O3 and 1886.
section 55l9. which was most consid.
rred in the court below, provides for the
punishment Of those who In any state
nr territory conspire for tho purpose OF
dcpriving, either directly or indirectly
luy person or class Of persons Of the
rl1al protection OF the laws or OF equal
privileges aud immunitles under the
AVS
Ia the United States vs. Harris LOG
| Z = 900 1t was decided that this zee.
ion was unconstitutional, as the power
ior the punishment Of conspiracles Of
/ i.c character therein mentioned was
vested IN the statp. II isurged however
/ Iual this section. although uncoastitu-
'oual when applied 10 the facts sci forth
BOO tbe Harris case, Is no. 80 when ap-
| pied TO the facts OF this case. Because
ibc person eonsplred against IN the for.
uer instance were citizens, while in
a the latter they were aliens entitled to
oiolection under United States treaty.
Tn support Of this argum ent. reliance
n placed oh the well-settled rule that a
.mute may be IN part constitutional
aud part unconstitutional, and that un
der some circumstances the part which
s Constitutional will be enforced and
ouly that which Is unconstitutional re-
eclrd.
To give effect to this rule, however,
-'.Ht par, which Is constitutional aud
uai which is unconstitutional must be
"wlle Of separation so that each may
,r placed by Iteelf. This statute Is not
M ihat character and the limitation
must ba made If at all by conssruction-
poo Us separation.
ih'a, II has often been decide |. Is not
enough. II is clear, I, the opinion Of
'le court, that section ,5lg cannot be
''s'ained In whole or In part In Its oper.
aNop within state. unless the case Of
'ue United States We. Harris Is over.
ruled and this court sees no reason for
doing so.